I changed the PETA thread to more accurately reflect the support of the radical
(criminal) underground. My responses did not make the newsgroup. Do you think
they were censored?
Instant Karma - 28 Nov 2003 11:50 GMT
>I changed the PETA thread to more accurately reflect the support of the radical
>(criminal) underground. My responses did not make the newsgroup. Do you think
>they were censored?
Yeah, I'm sure they were. It was probably done from that remote internet
connection in that black helicopter hovering over your flat.....
MacCandace - 28 Nov 2003 18:14 GMT
<< I changed the PETA thread to more accurately reflect the support of the
radical
(criminal) underground. My responses did not make the newsgroup. Do you think
they were censored? >>
By whom? This is an unmoderated newsgroup. I doubt if anyone really much
cares what we discuss about PETA on here.
Candace
(take the litter out before replying by e-mail)
See my cats:
http://photos.yahoo.com/maccandace
"One does not meet oneself until one catches the reflection from an eye other
than human." (Loren Eisely)
Alison - 28 Nov 2003 19:25 GMT
--Links to animal information websites
http://mysite.freeserve.com/petinfolinks/
> I changed the PETA thread to more accurately reflect the support of the radical
> (criminal) underground. My responses did not make the newsgroup. Do you think
> they were censored?
Hi ,
It happens sometimes when the threads get very long .
alison
Luvskats00 - 28 Nov 2003 20:11 GMT
alison@@XallofusX2.fsnet.co.uk
writes
>It happens sometimes when the >threads get very long .
It was a long <sigh>.
Alison - 29 Nov 2003 20:51 GMT
> alison@@XallofusX2.fsnet.co.uk
> writes
>
> >It happens sometimes when the >threads get very long .
>
> It was a long <sigh>.
LOL I've been in ones that are hundreds long on the dog groups,
lasting more than a month. I wonder what the longest thread ever is
?
Alison
hamandcheese@betweentheknees.com - 29 Nov 2003 21:37 GMT
>> >It happens sometimes when the >threads get very long .
Never heard of that before but server retention (lack off) is a well
known problem with many ISPs. Some are good for news and others drop
threads regularly like my cable ISP does (grrrrr).
-mhd
Cathy Friedmann - 28 Nov 2003 20:24 GMT
> I changed the PETA thread to more accurately reflect the support of the radical
> (criminal) underground. My responses did not make the newsgroup. Do you think
> they were censored?
Censored by whom? This ng is not moderated. The only reasons that they may
not have made it - that I know of (there may well be others - I'm not
exactly talented in the technology dep't.) - is that a server goofed up, you
thought you sent them but didn't, you accidentally e-mailed them instead of
posted them, or you cancelled them - which I assume you didn't.
Cathy
--
"Staccato signals of constant information..."
("The Boy in the Bubble") Paul Simon
Dennis Carr - 29 Nov 2003 03:49 GMT
> I changed the PETA thread to more accurately reflect the support of the
> radical (criminal) underground. My responses did not make the
> newsgroup. Do you think they were censored?
Unlikely. There are known to be forged cancels, but I've only heard of
those where the newsgroup is a constant pit of flames (IE, anything in
comp.* that ends in "advocacy" or unmoderated religious newsgroups).

Signature
Dennis Carr - ke6isf@spamcop.net | I may be out of my mind,
http://www.dennis.furtopia.org | But I have more fun that way.
------------------------------------+-------------------------------
rrb_091903 - 29 Nov 2003 19:38 GMT
> I changed the PETA thread to more accurately reflect the support of the radical
> (criminal) underground. My responses did not make the newsgroup. Do you think
> they were censored?
It is possible that the posts were canceled via a forged cancel. But I
doubt it. You are posting through AOL it seems. I would bet that AOl's
server rejected the posts. I have heard of AOL's servers dropping posts
in the past. Though since AOL is involved it is possible that they did
censor the posts depending on the content.
Alison - 29 Nov 2003 20:55 GMT
> It is possible that the posts were canceled via a forged cancel. But I
> doubt it. You are posting through AOL it seems. I would bet that AOl's
> server rejected the posts. I have heard of AOL's servers dropping posts
> in the past. Though since AOL is involved it is possible that they did
> censor the posts depending on the content.
As far as I know, cancelled posts can still be read on Google .
Sometimes its easy to click Reply instead of Group reply or more
embarrassingly sending a private Reply instead of Group Reply<G>
Alison
Luvskats00 - 29 Nov 2003 23:09 GMT
rrb_091903@cox.net writes
>It is possible that the posts were >canceled via a forged cancel. But I
>doubt it. You are posting through >AOL it seems. I would bet that >AOl's
server rejected the posts...
It figures..I responded w/a long summary of the history of the terrorism
support..Oh well.